Intellectual Property Law

January 22, 2024

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC Sues Indiana Restaurant/Bar, La Jalisco, LLP In Cable Piracy Suit

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, a California-based heavyweight in sports distribution, claims they owned exclusive distribution rights to the . They have brought suit against Defendant La Jalisco LLP, the owner and operator of a commercial restaurant and bar in Indianapolis, accusing them of illicitly showcasing the coveted Program.

Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605(a) specifically “prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication and use of communications, including satellite television signals.” G & G contends that La Jalisco LLP violated this law by knowingly and willfully advertising the viewing event on Facebook, intercepting the signal, and exhibiting the unauthorized Program within their establishment.

G & G is seeking statutory damages, claiming willful violations for commercial advantage. They seek an amount for each violation, alongside recovery of full costs and attorneys’ fees. In addition, Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages.

January 15, 2024

Tap Wars: Delta Faucet Company’s Patent Dispute with Sanitary Ware

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the modern era of technological advancements and the burgeoning landscape of online commerce, the interconnection of patent law with the dynamics of e-commerce platforms presents intricate challenges. A recent legal dispute between Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (“Sanitary Ware” or “Plaintiff”) and Delta Faucet Company (“DFC”) illuminates the complexities faced by international entities selling products on major online platforms like Amazon, particularly concerning allegations of patent infringement.

According to the complaint, Sanitary Ware, a Chinese-based company operating as “HGN Sanitary Ware,” sells kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace. Court documents also describe DFC, as an American plumbing fixture manufacturer under Masco Corporation, who is alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”) against specific Xin Glass Rinsers listed by Sanitary Ware on Amazon.

DFC claims ‘277 Patent details a rinsing apparatus comprising components like a mounting base, fluid discharge member, valve member, and escutcheon. DFC says they initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding against Sanitary Ware’s Xin Glass Rinser based on claim 1 of the ‘277 Patent, and Sanitary Ware chose not to participate in the APEX, leading Amazon to remove the listing of the disputed Xin Glass Rinser.

January 1, 2024

Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age: Watson Music Group v. Borshoff, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the contemporary digital landscape, the protection of intellectual property, especially in the realm of creative works, has become a paramount concern. Copyright infringement, the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted material, continues to pose significant challenges for creators and rights holders. A recent case involving Plaintiff Watson Music Group, LLC. d/b/a Quadrasound Music and Defendant Borshoff, Inc. sheds light on the complexities and legalities surrounding copyright infringement in the digital sphere.

Plaintiff Watson Music Group, a Florida-based limited liability company, alleges that Defendant Borshoff, Inc., an Indiana corporation, infringed upon its copyrighted musical work titled “Space Jam.” The alleged infringement occurred on Defendant’s social media account ‘@borshofftalks’ hosted on Facebook.

The complaint describes an unauthorized posting of a discernable excerpt of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted musical work on the Defendant’s Facebook account. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, without obtaining proper permission or authorization, reproduced, stored, and made available the copyrighted material for public performance via a digital audio transmission, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights as a copyright holder.

December 25, 2023

Protecting Creative Rights: Alexander Bayonne Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A recent lawsuit, Stross v. Tiny Timbers, involves a copyright infringement dispute between Alexander Bayonne Stross, a photographer and owner of copyrighted works, and Homestead Properties, Inc. dba Tiny Timbers, a hardwood products manufacturer. Stross alleges that Tiny Timbers unlawfully used his copyrighted photograph for advertising and promotional purposes on Homestead Properties’ website without his authorization.

Stross has filed a complaint against Tiny Timbers citing violations of the Copyright Act, specifically alleging unauthorized copying, distribution, and removal of copyright identification. He asserts that his work was registered with the Copyright Office and contains identifiable copyright management information, which was removed by Tiny Timbers when they allegedly used the image without permission.

Seeking recourse, Stross pursues both injunctive relief to prevent further infringement claims and monetary damages or profits resulting from the alleged unauthorized use of his copyrighted work. Additionally, he requests attorney’s fees and other remedies provided for under the Copyright Act.

December 4, 2023

Unraveling the Legal Knot: Copyright Infringement and the UFC Broadcast Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation, alleges ownership of exclusive distribution rights for broadcasting premier sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC). Through agreements with copyright holders, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. claims they obtained authorization to exhibit UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy.

Defendants, comprising LNH, LLC operating in Burlington, Indiana as Burlington Pizza/The Barn, along with Neal D. Harmon and Loriann Harmon, allegedly exhibited UFC 246 at their commercial establishment without the required authorization from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. The plaintiff claims that this action violated licensing requirements and involved unauthorized access to the Program through various means, including cable, satellite, or internet streams.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. asserts satellite and cable piracy violations under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, claiming that the defendants intercepted satellite signals or used unauthorized cable signals to broadcast the Program, contravening federal laws regulating such transmissions. Joe Hand also Alleges infringement of its exclusive distribution rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501), contending that the defendants exhibited the copyrighted Program publicly without proper authorization, violating intellectual property laws.

December 1, 2023

Court Order in HeathSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Defendants in trademark infringement case, HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. and Beth Porter have initiated a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, they have requested the case be transferred to the Northern District of California.

The dispute before Indiana Judge Matthew P. Brookman involves the use of the trademark SWEET NOTHINGS. In the midst of the case, Defendant Beth Porter initiated a separate lawsuit in California against HealthSmart, claiming fraud and unfair competition. Defendants argue that the defenses in the Indiana case overlap with Ms. Porter’s claims in the California case, indicating evidence and witness overlap as grounds for the case to be transferred. However, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED the Defendants’ request to transfer the Indiana case to the Northern District of California.

As for the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the judge stated that the issue revolves around whether Defendants’ contacts with Indiana justify personal jurisdiction. Defendants conceded that Sweet Nothings has minimum contacts with Indiana, but the parties disputed the significance of these contacts, the consideration of third-party retailer contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiff argued that Sweet Nothing’s website, offering shipping options to Indiana, actively engaging with Indiana consumers, and facilitating sales through Amazon to Indiana residents, demonstrates purposeful conduct directed towards the Indiana market. Judge Brookman agreed with the Plaintiff and DENIED the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

November 27, 2023

Protecting Intellectual Property: A Legal Fight in the Entertainment Industry

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Las Veg as, NV – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC is attempting to safeguard their purported, exclusive distribution rights by suing Indianapolis, Indiana Defendants Susana Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 LLC for the alleged unauthorized publication of a cable television program.

G&G’s argument states that they were granted the exclusive rights to the commercial distribution of the Saul “Canelo” Alvarez v. Caleb Plant Championship Fight Program that was broadcast on Saturday, November 6, 2021. They further argue that because they have the exclusive rights, any commercial establishment wanting to show the fight had to purchase the license to do so, which the Mexican restaurant failed to do. Therefore, G & G has accused the Defendants of willfully intercepting, receiving, and publishing the fight without said authorization.

As a result, the Plaintiff is asking the court to find that Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 is in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., which prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication, and use of communications, including satellite television signals, such as the transmission of the Program in question. In addition, G & G is seeking compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

November 10, 2023

Rights to Asphalt Paving Technology at Dispute in Lawsuit Between AarMaz Products Inc, and Rieth-Riley Construction Co.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Mulberry, Florida – Plaintiff ArrMaz Products Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana, alleging patent infringement related to their asphalt paving technologies covered by U.S. Patents Nos. 7,802,941 and 8,465,843. These patents are associated with ArrMaz’s BondTekk® bonded-paving technology, adopted by multiple states and contractors for creating safer and more durable roads.

The original complaint states that Rieth-Riley Construction is also involved in asphalt paving services and operates in several Midwestern states where asphalt-paving projects are awarded through competitive bidding. In February 2022, the claim states, the Plaintiff notified Rieth-Riley that ArrMaz’s patents covered specific projects awarded to Rieth-Riley by the state of Indiana and offered a license for their use. However, ArrMaz claims that Rieth-Riley expressed an intention to ignore the patents and not obtain the necessary licenses before moving forward with the project.

ArrMaz alleges that Rieth-Riley not only infringed on their patents but also engaged in willful infringement by using and selling the patented technology. Therefore, ArrMaz is seeking a court injunction to prevent Rieth-Riley from using or selling their patented products without the proper licenses. Additionally, they are seeking a monetary award to cover damages, including the costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

October 20, 2023

Multiple Patents Allegedly Infringed Upon In Suit between Rogue Fitness and Bells of Steel USA, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.” Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

October 9, 2023

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Shift Restaurant and Bar for Cable and Satellite Piracy

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Feasterville, Pennsylvania – Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. is suing Lawrenceburg, Indiana Defendants Shift Restaurant and Bar, Matt Euson, and Nicholas Roberts for allegedly committing “Cable Piracy” and “Satellite Piracy” as is defined in the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 553 and U.S.C. § 605).

According to the complaint, Joe Hand Promotions is a company specializing in the licensing and distribution of premier sporting events to commercial establishments. Joe Hand states that it holds exclusive licensing rights to many televised sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championships®. Since obtaining the rights to the Ultimate Fighting Championships in 2001, the Plaintiff claims they have entered into agreements with various U.S. restaurants, bars, lounges, clubhouses, etc., who have purchased the pay-per-view rights to commercially broadcast the Championships and other similar sporting events to their patrons.

On January 18, 2020 and again on August 15, 2020, two different Ultimate Fighting Championship fights were scheduled to be broadcast on pay-per-view television (Ultimate Fighting Championship® 246: Conor McGregor vs. Donald “Cowboy” Cerrone and Ultimate Fighting Championship® 252: Stipe Miocic vs. Daniel Cormier). The Plaintiff alleges that on both nights, the Defendants chose to circumvent the Plaintiff’s licensing rights and commercially broadcast the fights at Shift Restaurant without purchasing permission to do so. The Plaintiff claims the Defendants pirated the programming and infringed upon their right as the rightful owner of the distribution license.